NH committee hears hours of testimony on local education freedom accounts; bill retained for more work

Representative Kevin Verville, the bill’s prime sponsor, opened testimony on House Bill 748, saying the measure would let New Hampshire communities enable local “education freedom accounts,” or LEFAs, by local ballot and that the state adequacy grant would be a pass-through into those accounts.

“Public education in New Hampshire means that each local community has an obligation to educate the children in their community,” Verville told the committee, and, he said, LEFAs are intended to shift funding to families as an option while preserving local oversight of special education and requiring statewide assessments for accountability.

The bill drew extensive public comment and sharp questioning from committee members. Opponents included retired and active teachers, school board and budget committee members, special-education directors and parent advocates who described problems with the current statewide Education Freedom Account program and warned the local version would magnify them.

Patty Long, a retired public-school teacher, said the scholarship organization that administers EFAs spends substantial amounts on administration and that current allowable purchases include items such as ski passes and Amazon purchases. “This voucher program or EFA or LEFA has not been tasked. They have not tasked any of the parents to do any of the above,” Long said, adding her opposition to expanding the program.

Teachers and special-education directors told the committee they feared additional unfunded charges on local budgets and confusion about who must provide services when a student uses a LEFA. Becky Wilson of the New Hampshire School Boards Association told lawmakers that, under the bill’s language, resident districts could remain financially responsible for special-education services even when the student is educated elsewhere — a structure school leaders said would increase costs without reducing obligations.

Supporters and some speakers said LEFAs would increase options for families who now lack affordable choices. A resident who testified in favor noted that private-school tuitions cited from the state list can be comparable to district per-pupil spending in some towns and argued local control over funding could be an efficient alternative.

Committee members repeatedly pressed the sponsor about special-education funding, transportation, how differentiated aid and state adequacy payments would flow, and how later enrollments and repeals would be handled. Verville said the LEFA grant would equal twice the state adequacy number and that other differentiated aids (free-and-reduced-price meals, ELL, special-education differentiated aid) would still flow but would not be doubled; he also said LEFA participants would still be counted in average daily membership for state funding purposes.

After the hearing the committee met in executive session and voted to retain HB 748 for further consideration; the motion to retain passed on the committee floor. The committee record shows the motion to retain the bill was approved (committee recorded vote: 10 yeas, 8 nays).

Why this matters: The measure would change how some public education dollars are spent in local districts and raises questions about the long-term fiscal impact on already-stretched local budgets and about how special-education obligations would be enforced and funded.

Speakers quoted in this report are identified in the committee transcript. The committee did not advance the bill to a floor recommendation; it retained HB 748 for additional work and clarifications.